Navigate this section

Headlines archive

2007

Supreme Court accepts three new cases

Madison, Wisconsin -
August 21, 2007

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has voted to accept three new cases. The Court also acted to deny review in a number of cases. The case numbers, issues, and counties of origin are listed below. Court of Appeals opinions/certification memos that are available online for the newly accepted cases are hyperlinked.

2006AP2060-CR State v. Dwight M. Sanders
The defendant in this case was convicted, after a guilty plea, of second-offense possession of cocaine with intent to deliver. Police first arrived at Dwight M. Sanders’ home on an animal cruelty complaint, found him in the yard with several pit bulls that did not appear mistreated, and asked him for identification, which he refused to supply. Sanders was holding a wad of cash and a beef jerky canister that police believed might contain drugs, and they ultimately chased him into his home.

The Court of Appeals reversed his conviction after concluding that the police officers violated the Fourth Amendment when they entered Sanders’ home without a warrant.

The Supreme Court is expected to clarify whether the ‘hot pursuit’ doctrine, which permits law enforcement to enter private residences under certain circumstances without a warrant, applies only in situations involving serious felonies, or whether misdemeanor offenses also fall under the doctrine. From Racine County

2005AP2175-CR State v. Brian H. Duchow
This case involves a boy with Down Syndrome. When his behavior appeared to change after he began riding a school bus driven by the defendant, Brian Duchow, the boy’s parents placed a tape recorder in the boy’s backpack. The recordings revealed that Duchow was threatening the boy and making reference to past incidents involving physical violence. Duchow was charged with intentionally causing bodily harm to a child. The circuit court denied Duchow’s motion to suppress the recordings from evidence, and Duchow pleaded guilty and was convicted.

A divided Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, concluding that the tape recordings should have been suppressed. The Supreme Court is expected to clarify whether recordings of this type – where neither party to the conversation is aware of the recording – are regulated by the Wisconsin Electronic Surveillance Control Law. From Milwaukee County

2006AP2761 WRA, Inc. v. Town of West PointJustice Annette K. Ziegler did not participate in the decision to accept this certification.
This case involves a question of whether towns in Wisconsin have the authority to, in effect, place a moratorium on new development while updating land-use plans. In certifying this case to the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals noted that this issue is one that is likely to recur across the state as Wisconsin’s "smart growth" statute requires municipalities to develop updated comprehensive land use plans.

The case began when the Town of West Point placed an 18-month moratorium on development. The town’s stated reason was to avoid an anticipated rush of developers trying to gain project approval before enactment of the updated land-use plan. The Wisconsin Realtors Association and the Wisconsin Builders Association took the town to court and lost. As noted, the Court of Appeals concluded that this case presents an issue of pressing statewide importance and asked the Supreme Court to take it directly. The Supreme Court is expected to decide whether a town has the authority to enact an ordinance that places a moratorium on new development. From Columbia County

Review denied: The Supreme Court denied review in the following cases. Supreme Court review is a matter of judicial discretion, not of right, and will be granted only when special and important reasons are presented. As the state’s law-developing court, the Supreme Court exercises its discretion to consider for review only those cases that fit certain criteria, but these criteria neither control nor fully measure the court’s discretion (see Wis. Stat. (rule) § 809.62). Except where indicated, these cases came to the Court via petition for review by the party who lost in the lower court.